Guest guest Posted November 18, 2005 Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 Namaste Chitteranjanji: You wrote: Namaste Sri Michaelji, advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > > Namaste Chitteranjan and Sanjay, >For instance because the Upanishads make reference > to 5 Elements are you proposing that we revisethe periodic table? No, the elements of the periodic table are given in the further evolution of the elements wherein the five primal elements first arose. According to Advaita, the five elements combine to produce the gross elements through a process known as quintuplication. The gross elements further combine with one another in different proportions to give us the elements that we know as the elements of the world such as iron, gold, mercury, etc. The five primal elements are the corresponding objects of the five primal senses that we possess - the sense of hearing, the sense of touch, the sense of sight, the sense of taste, and the sense of smell. The objects that we perceive in the world around us are not simple objects, but are the objects compounded of the objects of different senses. ||||||||||||||||||||||| M: Are you saying that the Vedas were representing the pre-scientific knowledge of their time which has been superceded by the empirical experimentally based science of today or are you saying that the combination according to the laws of quintuplication have relevance today. Are you argueing that it is conceivable that in some laboratory today this could be shown to be the case? |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > Do you think that the word 'go' has more cowhood/cownessabout it than > 'bo', 'vache', 'vaccus' etc.? That would > confirm the tower of Babel story :-) I am unable to understand the question. There is no more or less to cowness. More and less as seen in the world are particulars of moreness and lessness. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| M: I can understand your reluctance to admit to this theory which you limn elsewhere ie. "This vidya uses the very power by which Consciousness creates the universe through the word. Each phoneme (or sound of the letter) of the alphabet is related to an aspect of this universe. Certain combinations of phonemes are called mantras and the Grace of Consciuosness is invoked for Shakti to abide in the mantra for it to work. I think I should stop now at this point, for already I have said enough today to be ranked as some kindly of loony character set loose in this world! :-)" So is the language that is used Sanskrit or is it one of the other favoured tongues Arabic, Hebrew, or Greek. |||||||||||||| > This position seems not to cohere with the > one you took in relation to Frank Morales. > You scouted his argument that the Vedicone reality many paths idea was > distinctlydifferent from that of other religions > and that therefore the view that somehow > all religions are the same was false. The proposition that all religions are the same is not false. They are same in terms of the sameness that is in them which is the Living Principle (chaitanya). They are distinct in so far as they have distinct attributes. That is what I had said in the article to counter the view that the sameness of religions would negate the distinctions between them. > This is a unique notion which marks a > distinct and different religion said Frank. Youtook the approach that > contradiction was > merely apparent or many more words to that > effect. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| M:If the Vedas have something to say which is true in a scientific sense as you make out in relation to the Periodic Table, suitably permuted, then Religious discourse can agree with or deny other forms of discourse including other Religious stories. This marches us straight into the ambush of the atheist who says 'well they can't agree on anything, the whole thing is nonsense'. When Shankara is looking to reconcile various texts, what he is seeking is internal coherence according to the general Vedic matrix not reconciliation with anything and everthing from hither and yon. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| CN: No that is not what I had said. I had said that there are vishesha religions and universal religion and that the vishesha religions do not contradict the universal religion as they are particulars of the universal. |||||||||||||||||||||| M: I presume you are referring to the concept of Sanathana Dharma which is embedded in the Vedic matrix and is not physically separated out in the form of an entity. It is an element within Hinduism so you were not contradicting Frank when he said that instantiated forms of religious worship are different. |||||||||||||||||||||||| > Now you are saying that contradiction counts. Which is it? Contradiction counts. Brahman is not subject to contradictions because contradictions are applicable to objects in the realm of names and forms and not to the Ground of names and forms. That is what I had said in the article. |||||||||||||||||||||||| M: That would be entirely unobjectionable because vacuous. However you now appear to be saying that religious discourse holds sway over other realms and can disagree with them in a meaningful sense as in your repudiation of the big bang, false in the light of revelation. ||||||||||||||||| CN: Warm regards, Chittaranjan |||||||||| ditto, Michael. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Respected Sir, Thank u very much. I will read Brihadaranyakopanishad of which i have a copy. The url connection is not showing well in my computer. In Sah bhuriti vyaharat bhuvamasrujata, did He literaly say Bhu:H in Sanskrit and create the bhuvam? I am interpreting the word bhu:h to MEAN by COGNITION the bhuvam, and in that interpretation, I can reconcile both the Purusha Sukatam text sarva:ni ru:pa:ni vichitya dhi:rah na:ma:ni kruthva bhivadan yada:sthe: The loRD VISUALISED THE bHUVAM AND CREATED IT . Later as the ji:va:s , he revisualised bhuvam as bhu:h or earth, etc in different languages and created the words in the reverse direction from a vyavaharika plane creating our speech. Any comments? Love Bhuvaneswar On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 Sunder Hattangadi wrote : >advaitin, "bhuvan eswar chilukuri" ><bhuvaneswarc@r...> wrote: > > > > > > > > In which Upanishad does the bhuriti vyaharat quote comes? > >Namaste, > > Is the reference perhaps to the following? > >http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/brinew-proofed.itx > >saH aham asmi iti agre vyAharat > >so.ahamasmItyagre vyAharat [i.iv.1] > > > >Regards, > >Sunder > > > > > > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > Links > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Namaste Sri Michaelji, advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: CN: > No, the elements of the periodic table are given in the > further evolution of the elements wherein the five primal > elements first arose. According to Advaita, the five > elements combine to produce the gross elements through a > process known as quintuplication. The gross elements further > combine with one another in different proportions to give > us the elements that we know as the elements of the world > such as iron, gold, mercury, etc. > > The five primal elements are the corresponding objects of > the five primal senses that we possess - the sense of hearing, > the sense of touch, the sense of sight, the sense of taste, > and the sense of smell. The objects that we perceive in the > world around us are not simple objects, but are the objects > compounded of the objects ofdifferent senses. M: > Are you saying that the Vedas were representing the > pre-scientific knowledge of their time which has been > superceded by the empirical experimentally based science > of today CN: No, I am not saying that. M: > or are you saying that the combination according to the > laws of quintuplication have relevance today. CN: I am not sure if we can call the process of quintuplication a law. It is the process of mixing the five pure elements constituted in the subtle world of Hiranyagharba whereby they evolve into the gross elements constituting the gross world of Virat. M: > Are you argueing that it is conceivable that in some laboratory > today this could be shown to be the case? CN: The only laboratory it can be shown in is the laboratory of Consciousness. Fire, for example, is that which is lit in all things seen by the eye (by the sense of sight). How can one take all of it and put it into a test tube in the laboratory of science. What is seen visibly of the test tube is also that self-same fire that one would need to put into the test tube if one were to follow the scientific method. The scientific method is incommensurate with the means for obtaining higher knowledge. Science is in fact a hindrance on the path of self-knowledge. It is one of the purva-pakshas that Vedanta must confront and demolish before the truth of Vedanta is seen. What is it that is called fire? What is air? These are the pure objects of the senses. Fire is the substance of which light and visible form are the attributes. All visible forms are the forms of fire and its visibility is its light. The world that we see is the dance of fire. (Heraclites! Weren't these your words?) The element air of the Upanishads is not the air of science. It is the air that we knew in a somewhat - only somewhat -purer form before it was ravished by science. Air is not made up of nitrogen and oxygen and such other grosser things. Air is the pure element that is prior to nitrogen and oxygen. Air is the pure element that is subsistent in nitrogen and oxygen. It is the second element to evolve in creation and it is beheld without the eyes, without the tongue, without the nose; it is beheld only with the skin (sense of touch). It is that which pervaded space as the primordial invisible existential and was presented in Consciousness as that which was touched. It was all over in space (akasha) and it was prior to fire and water and earth; all these made of fire and water and earth evolved from it. (Hark! Do I not now hear Anaximenis whispering? And if I continue in this vein will I not also hear the whisper of Thales?) We have lost our ability to see the pure elements through loss of meaning. This loss of meaning is the loss of cognition that marks the 'descent' of the soul. The soul 'ascends' again when it regains the cognition that it had lost wherein it can cognise once again the primordial elements of creation. It is called re cognition or pratyabhijna. _______________ M: > Do you think that the word 'go' has more cowhood/cownessabout > it than 'bo', 'vache', 'vaccus' etc.? That would confirm the > tower of Babel story :-) C: > I am unable to understand the question. There is no more or > less to cowness. More and less as seen in the world are > particulars of moreness and lessness. M: > I can understand your reluctance to admit to this theory C: If there is reluctance on my part to admit my convictions, it is because I have still not learnt to be a clown among people! :-) M: > which you limn elsewhere ie. "This vidya uses the very power > by which Consciousness creates the universe through the word. > Each phoneme (or sound of the letter) of the alphabet is > related to an aspect of this universe. Certain combinations > of phonemes are called mantras and the Grace of Consciuosness > is invoked for Shakti to abide in the mantra for it to > work. I think I should stop now at this point, for already I > have said enough today to be ranked as some kindly of loony > character set loose in this world! :-)" C: Well Michaelji, today I seem to be well on my way to being ranked as one! I hold the Tower of Babel story to be true! M: > So is the language that is used Sanskrit or is it one of the > other favoured tongues Arabic, Hebrew, or Greek. C: It is the Sanskrit of the Vedas and not the laukika words of the Sanskrit language. It is what the Vedas themselves say about the Vedas being the words through which the universe is created. The scriptures of the Arabs and the Hebrews and the Greeks say that the world was created through the word, but they do not say that these words are the Arabic or the Hebrew or the Greek language. The Vedas do not belong to any one people of this earth, but there are people on the earth that are the custodians of the Vedas and they (have the role to) preserve them here in their original sound form. The custodians are however not the owners. The Vedas belong to all of creation and to all beings. _____________ M: > If the Vedas have something to say which is true in a > scientific sense as you make out in relation to the > Periodic Table, suitably permuted, then Religious > discourse can agree with or deny other forms of discourse > including other Religious stories. CN: Kant said that the sciences exist and they work, therefore the question that we must properly ask is: How is it that these sciences come to be possible? It is in this sense that religious enquiry may engage the sciences to understand the schema of the universe whereby science is made possible. But Kant did not see that the things that make science possible may not make it a faithful depiction of Reality. I would say, like Wittgenstein said, that science is a net laid out upon reality. Proceeding further, I would be inclined to say that the net of science makes reality appear in the new guise of the net that is laid out over it. I have argued elsewhere that science is an accurate depiction of the abstract dynamism of things but it has nothing to say about the 'what' of things. The dynamism of things is given by the mathematics within the (scientific) framework wherin both the formulation and the interpretation of the mathmatics are done without a consideration of the 'what' of things or the structure of the language that is used to designate these things and the relationships that abide between them. Science is a stupendous discipline no doubt, but when it also begins to claim that it is depicting 'what' things are, then the claim needs to be investigated. M: > This marches us straight into the ambush of the atheist who > says 'well they can't agree on anything, the whole thing is > nonsense'. CN: No, I think I have given sufficient reasons to show why such a situation will not arise. M: > When Shankara is looking to reconcile various texts, what he > is seeking is internal coherence according to the general > Vedic matrix not reconciliation with anything and everthing > from hither and yon. CN: True, Shankara is seeking internal coherence within the Vedic matrix, but I have a feeling that you are also refering here to my refutation of Dr. Morales' thesis wherein I might have given you the impression that by refuting his views, I was somehow saying that all differences are to be reconciled. But that is not what I had said in the article. I had refuted Dr. Morales' view to show that the sameness in different things do not negate the specific differences between them. What is meant by saying that all religions are the same is not the same as saying that the specific vision of each religion is the same, but that there is a sameness that lies within the visions of all religions - which is the Chaitanya or the Living Principle seen in them. Dr. Morales had said that each religion is a distinct religion that leads to a 'different mountain', and he had gone to the extent of saying that the paths of various religions do not even lead to the same 'mountain'. His arguments had completely ignored the relationships that abide between universals and particulars and between substances and attributes with the end result that he not only (fallaciously) negated the universalism in Hinduism but also concluded (falsely) that Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was an illiterate who was not imbibed of the true spirit of Hinduism. The arguments furnished by Dr Frank Gaetano Morales in the Radical Universalism article were like those of the sophists of China who had argued that a white horse is not a horse. Their argument was something like this: 'white' and 'horse' are different things. A 'white horse' is a different thing than the thing called 'white' and the thing called 'horse'. Therefore, a white horse is not a horse. The Chinese School of Names, to which the doctrine of the white horse belongs, was dismantled by the Confucians. ______________ CN: > No that is not what I had said. I had said that there are vishesha > religions and universal religion and that the vishesha religions do > not contradict the universal religion as they are particulars of the > universal. M: > I presume you are referring to the concept of Sanathana Dharma > which is embedded in the Vedic matrix and is not physically > separated out in the form of an entity. It is an element within > Hinduism CN: It is not exactly as you put it. Sanatana Dharma is not an element within Hinduism if by Hinduism is meant what the people of India (are supposed to) practice. It would by truer to say that Hinduism is a form of Sanatana Dharma. It is all a bit difficult to articulate but I shall try. Sanatana Dharma is the Eternal Dharma. It is in the leaves of the trees, it is in the hills, it is in the valleys, it is in the sky and in the water, it is in the religion of ancient Greece, it is in the mystery religion of ancient Egypt, it is in the Mesopotamian religion of Inaana, it is in the religion given to the children of Jerusulem, it is in Christianity and in the religion of the Essenes, it is in the religion of Islam, it is in the religion of Zoroaster, it is in the Paganism of the Celts and the Shamanism of the Pacific Islands, there is no dharma anywhere in this entire universe that is not Sanatana Dharma. This Eternal Dharma is revealed in the Vedas. The Eternal Dharma is the Way of all beings that accords with their swadharmas or their intrinsic natures. Dharma as a normative principle is the norm that one shall live in accordance with one's swadharma. It is the one principle that finds expression in Lord Krishna's words: "Better one's own duty, though devoid of merit, than the duty of another well discharged. Better is death in one's own duty; the duty of another is productive of danger." (BG.III.35) In the Eternal Religion, each people on this earth has its own vishesha religion in accordance with their nature or swadharma. Their religion is in accordance with the principles of the Eternal Dharma whereby they have to live by their intrinsic natures as given to them by the specific religion revealed to them. The specific religion that the people of India (now called Hindus) are to live by is the religion of Vaidika Dharma wherein they are the custodians of the Vedas. This Dharma is a vishesha religion because they may not live as Christians do or as Muslims do. They have to live according to their swadharma if they are to abide by dharma. M: > so you were not contradicting Frank when he said that > instantiated forms of religious worship are different. CN: I was not contradicting his view that instantiated forms of religious worship are different. If that was all that he had to say, I would not have ventured to write a rebuttal of his article. I will reproduce herebelow the reasons I had stated in my article for writing it. "We shall henceforth use the term 'Hindu Universalism' to refer to the true universalism that exists in Hinduism as distinguished from Radical Universalism, or the absurd idea that all religions are exactly the same. Dr. Morales conflates the two and presents them as if they constitute one single idea. It is this conflation that has derailed the entire Critique of Radical Universalism and reduced it to the level of mere sophistry instead of being worthy of the title of Philosophical Critique that it bears. By treating the genuine universalism that exists in Hinduism as well as the misbegotten idea that all religions are EXACTLY the same as one amorphous idea under the common banner of Radical Universalism, Dr. Morales denies not merely the idea that all religions are exactly the same, but also the veneer of sublime universalism that runs through the texture of Hinduism." "While it is true that there is in neo-Hinduism a distressing trend to reduce the great universal ideas of Hinduism into naïve, and often, inane platitudes, we must at the same time guard ourselves from overly reacting to it and discarding the sublime with the profane. If Dr. Morales had merely denied that traditional Hinduism d to the idea that all religions are exactly the same, we would have had no cause to write this reply, but since he also attempts, on account of his indiscriminations, to dispossess Hinduism of some of its central tenets, and to go so far as to belittle great Hindu saints like Sri Ramakrishna, we shall be obliged to set our labours to correct the serious distortions caused by his paper." M: > Now you are saying that contradiction counts. Which is it? CN: > Contradiction counts. Brahman is not subject to contradictions > because contradictions are applicable to objects in the realm of > names and forms and not to the Ground of names and forms. That is > what I had said in the article. M: > That would be entirely unobjectionable because vacuous. CN: Dr Frank Morales had attempted to fill up the sacred vacuum where no propositions reside by saying that Brahman is subject to either-or propositions. M: > However you now appear to be saying that religious discourse > holds sway over other realms and can disagree with them in a > meaningful sense as in your repudiation of the big bang, > false in the light of revelation. CN: Yes. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Namaste Sri Felipe-ji, advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema" <fcrema> wrote: > Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji! > As for jnana-marga and it's lack of a clearly defined path, > i had felt this coming, unfortunately... I must then only > conclude that the path to be taken is the same that has led > me here, where "apparently different" individuals congregate > through the power of similar ideas, drawn together by > this power represented by knowledge? I believe that this too is part of the path. The path leads to all things, inside all things, around all things, into the form of all things, and above all into our minds where the darkness resides because we don't go there. Going there is the path. I believe that where the light of Self shines is the path. > As for one of your later posts, i beg to differ with you... Actually I don't think we are in much difference in view of what you say below. > To elaborate on this matter, what i mean by this is that > his theory does not tries to connect the cause to the effect, > as it is a "mere" description of the effect itself. It would > be the same as, in the event of you reaching out to grab a > glass of water, a theory being derived to describe the > movement of your hand. However, not in a single moment would > the theory object wether you were thirsty or not. If I have understood you correctly, we agree perfectly on this. I call this 'description of the movement' the 'abstract dynamism' of things (as mentioned in my previous post to Michaelji), which I had once written a little bit on as part of a larger post in the (now defunct) discussion forum of The Philosophers Magazine, and I reproduce it here below: 3. SCIENCE, ESSENCE AND DYNAMISM 3.1 The organic structure of the scientific interpretive framework is displayed in the language it employs: the languages of mathematics. 3.2 The elements or signs of the language of science, that is, of mathematics, are variables, relations and operators. Its grammar is its structural form. i.e. the structure of formulae. 3.3 Variables denote magnitudes, not substantial things. The language of mathematics does not denote things as they are essentially, but the magnitudes of things, or their relations. 3.4 A thing, in substance, has no degree or magnitude, only its qualifying attribute has. 3.5 Magnitudes indicate degrees of extension or intention of a qualifying attribute. Magnitudes do not say anything of the essence of the attribute. 3.6 Variables, therefore, say nothing whatsoever of what a thing in essence is, or what its quality in essence is is, but only about the extent to which the qaulity of a thing is. 3.7 The extent to which a quality is, indicates something about its manifest form i.e., the degree, though not its essence. 3.8 Even though variables do not indicate what a thing is, its value can indicate how the thing actualises in nature by denoting the formal extent or degree of the attribute. 3.9 Scientific frameworks are thus descriptions of the abstract dynamism of things, without being descriptions of the natures or essences of things. > Thus, the theory being another theory arising in the maya > of time, refering to a somewhat lower level on the ladder > when compared to the scriptures, therefore not in direct > contradiction. In other words, the theory being a > mechanical description of the mechanism, being it BrAhma's > speech or otherwise. I agree with you when you say that the Big Bang theory is another theory in Maya at a somewhat lower level, but would say that what separates the 'lower' from the 'higher' is either (1) the completion of the theory, in which case there is no direct contradiction between it and the scriptures, or (2) the extent to which the confusions of ignorance are built into the theories, in which case there would be a contradiction. I am not sure that the Big Bang theory is free of the latter kind of 'lowerness'. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.